ArticleJAMA network open2021
Utilization of a Colorectal Cancer Screening Test Among Individuals With Average Risk.
Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
39 citing papers in PubMed, 63 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of a Digital Platform for Colorectal Cancer Risk Stratification and Personalized Screening Recommendations.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Fecal Immunochemical Test and Multitarget Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Real-World Practice: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Optimizing Colonoscopy Capacity to Maximize Colorectal Cancer Outcomes.Gastro hep advances · 2026Article
- Rule-out test for autism using machine-learning analysis of molecular temporal dynamics in hair - a multicenter study.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Changes in Colorectal Cancer Screening Modalities Among Insured Individuals.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Adherence to multi-target stool DNA colorectal cancer screening and clinical follow-up in the Hartford HealthCare system.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- Patient and nodule characteristics associated with adherence to lung cancer screening in a large integrated healthcare system.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Navigation and clinician payment investments enhance colorectal cancer screening benefits.The American journal of managed care · 2025Article
- Cancer Screening Progress and Noninvasive Screening Opportunities since the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2025Article
- Are Non-invasive Multi-cancer Early Cancer Detection Tests the Future?Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Review
- Re-evaluating population-level screening recommendations to address increasing early-onset colorectal cancer rates in Australia: a modelling study.ESMO gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Biomarkers for colorectal cancer detection: An insight into colorectal cancer and FDA-approved biomarkers.BioImpacts : BI · 2025Review
- Examining the Cost-Effectiveness of Introducing Patient Navigation Services for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among a Low-Income and Uninsured Population.Health services insights · 2025Article
- Adherence to Follow-Up Colonoscopy After a Positive Stool-Based Test in Patients Aged 45-49 Years: Real-World Differences Between Multitarget Stool DNA Testing and Fecal Immunochemical or Fecal Occult Blood Testing.Gastro hep advances · 2025Article
- Machine learning-based model for CD4Scientific reports · 2024Article
- USPSTF Colorectal Cancer Screening Recommendation and Uptake for Individuals Aged 45 to 49 Years.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Effect of an Inflatable Colon on Colorectal Cancer Knowledge and Screening Intent Among Male Attendees at State Fairs in Two Midwestern States, 2023.Preventing chronic disease · 2024Article
- Utilization of colorectal cancer screening tests: a systematic review and time trend analysis of nationally representative data.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Review
- Utility of Stool-Based Tests for Colorectal Cancer Detection: A Comprehensive Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Evaluating colonoscopy quality by performing provider type.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces CRC incidence and mortality. It is important to examine screening patterns over time, including after the introduction of new screening modalities. Objective: To compare use of CRC screening tests before and after the availability of the multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, given that endorsed options have changed. Design, Setting, and Participants: This longitudinal cohort study used administrative claims data to examine CRC screening use in 2 discrete periods: before (August 1, 2011, to July 31, 2014) and after (August 1, 2016, to July 31, 2019) the mt-sDNA test became available. The MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases were queried for individuals aged 45 to 75 years between August 1, 2011, and July 31, 2019, with average risk of CRC and with continuous enrollment in the databases from August 1, 2001, to July 31, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of individuals up to date or not due for CRC screening during each measurement year and the type of screening test used among individuals due for screening. Data were reported overall and among individuals aged 45 to 49 or 50 years and older on August 1, 2011. Results: A total of 97 776 individuals with average risk were identified. Individuals had a mean (SD) age of 50.8 (3.5) years, and 54 227 (55.5%) were women. The proportion of individuals with average risk aged 50 to 75 years with commercial or Medicare supplemental insurance who were up to date with CRC screening increased from 50.4% in 2011 (30 605 of 60 770) to 69.7% in 2019 (42 367 of 60 770). Among individuals due for screening and screened, the use of high-sensitivity fecal occult blood test (FOBT) decreased between 2011 (1088 of 6241 eligible individuals [17.7%]) and 2019 (195 of 2943 eligible individuals [6.6%]), and the use of mt-sDNA increased between 2016 (58 of 3014 eligible individuals [1.9%]) and 2019 (418 of 2943 eligible individuals [14.2%]). No consistent trends were observed with fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or screening colonoscopy. Computed tomography colonography, double-contrast barium enema, and flexible sigmoidoscopy were rarely performed. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the proportion of individuals with average risk who were up to date with CRC screening increased between 2011 and 2019 but remained suboptimal. There were no substantial changes in the use of the colonoscopy or FIT; however, there was an increase in the adoption of mt-sDNA and a decrease in the use of FOBT during the study period.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.